federal communications commission fcc 09-64 · federal communications commission fcc 09-64 4 3....

Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-64

Before theFederal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service

)))))))

IB Docket No. 07-101

REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: July 30, 2009 Released: July 31, 2009

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No.

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3

A. Procedural History ........................................................................................................................... 3B. VMES .............................................................................................................................................. 9C. Two-Degree Spacing...................................................................................................................... 10D. Related Proceedings....................................................................................................................... 13E. Commenters ................................................................................................................................... 14

III. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................... 15A. VMES Allocation in the Conventional and Extended Ku-bands................................................... 17B. Allocation Issues............................................................................................................................ 24

1. U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations ...................................................................................... 242. International Allocation Issues ................................................................................................ 323. Coordination with SRS Stations in 14.0-14.2 GHz Band........................................................ 354. Coordination with RAS Stations in 14.47-14.5 GHz Band ..................................................... 445. Other Allocation Issues ........................................................................................................... 65

C. Technical and Licensing Rules for VMES..................................................................................... 781. The ESV Rules......................................................................................................................... 792. Off-Axis E.I.R.P.-Density Mask as Applied to VMES ........................................................... 833. Antenna Pointing Accuracy and Cessation Requirements .................................................... 1264. Data Collection, Retention and Availability.......................................................................... 1365. Point of Contact..................................................................................................................... 1556. Licensing Issues..................................................................................................................... 1607. Radio Frequency Radiation Hazard and Equipment Certification Requirements ................. 1758. Other Considerations.............................................................................................................. 193

IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 207


2

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 209A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis .......................................................................................... 209B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis....................................................................... 210

VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 211APPENDIX A – List of Comments and Commenters APPENDIX B – Final RulesAPPENDIX C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Report and Order we adopt allocation, technical and licensing rules to permit the domestic, U.S. licensing of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (“VMES”) as a primary application of the Fixed Satellite Service (“FSS”) in the relevant Ku-band frequencies.1 In Part 25 of the Commission’s rules, we define VMES as an earth station operating from a motorized vehicle that travels primarily on land, receives from and transmits to geo-stationary satellite orbit (“GSO”) FSS space stations, and operates within the United States pursuant to the requirements set out in Part 25 of the rules.2 We amend Part 25 of the rules and add a new section 25.226 setting forth technical and licensing rules for VMES as a mobile application of the Ku-band FSS. We also adopt two footnotes to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (“U.S. Table”) contained in Part 2 of the Commission’s rules.

2. We conclude that these rule changes promote innovative and flexible use of satellite technology. The new rules provide new opportunities for a variety of uses, including U.S. military training needs on VMES technology. They increase the potential that broadband communications capabilities will be made available for various emergency preparedness and commercial purposes where high-bandwidth, advanced mobile communications capabilities are beneficial. At the same time, the technical rules ensure that VMES operations will avoid interfering with existing and future FSS operators and their customers. The rules promote coordination with space research service (“SRS”) and radio astronomy service (“RAS”) facilities, protecting these important national assets from harmful interference. The rules protect terrestrially-based Fixed Service (“FS”) operators and their customers in the relevant extended Ku-band frequencies.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

1. General Dynamics Petition3. On May 24, 2006, General Dynamics SATCOM Technologies, Inc. (together with its

parent General Dynamics Corporation, “General Dynamics”) filed a petition for rulemaking (“Petition”) asking the Commission to amend Parts 2 and 25 of the rules to allocate spectrum and adopt technical and licensing rules for VMES as an application of the Ku-band FSS.3 Specifically, General Dynamics asked the Commission to: (1) allocate spectrum for use with VMES in the FSS in the conventional Ku-band

1 For purposes of this Report and Order, the “relevant” Ku-band frequencies refer to the “conventional” Ku-band frequencies in the 11.7-12.2 GHz (downlink) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (uplink) bands and the “extended” Ku-band frequencies in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (downlink) bands. Excluded are the so-called “extended” Ku-band frequencies at 10.7-10.95 GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, and 13.75-14.0 GHz.2 See Appendix B to this Report and Order, section 25.201, Definitions.3 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum in the Ku- and Extended Ku-Bands to the Vehicle Mounted Earth Station Satellite Service (“VMES”) on a Shared Primary Basis and to Adopt Licensing and Service Rules for VMES Operations in the Ku- and Extended Ku-Bands, Petition for Rulemaking, RM-11336 (filed May 24, 2006).


3

uplink at 14.0-14.5 GHz and conventional Ku-band downlink at 11.7-12.2 GHz on a primary basis, and in the extended Ku-band downlink at 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz on a non-protected basis; and (2) adopt Ku-band VMES licensing and service rules modeled on the Commission’s rules for Ku-band Earth Stations on Vessels (“ESVs”).4

4. In its Petition, General Dynamics asserted that a VMES allocation and regularized service and licensing rules would facilitate the U.S. military’s training needs with respect to advanced VMES technologies and increase the potential that advanced communications capabilities would be made available for various emergency preparedness and commercial purposes where high-bandwidth, mobile communications capabilities are beneficial.5

2. Public Notice and NPRM5. On July 20, 2006, the Commission placed the Petition on public notice.6 On May 15,

2007, in response to the Petition and to comments filed in response to the Petition, the Commission initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in this proceeding, seeking comment on whether to license VMES as an application of the FSS in the Ku-band within the United States.7

6. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on the proposed adoption of a primary allocation for VMES applications in the conventional Ku-band frequencies, of secondary or unprotected status in the relevant extended Ku-band frequencies, and of technical and licensing rules for VMES, possibly modeled on the rules for Ku-band ESV.8 The Commission sought comment on how to promote innovative and flexible use of satellite technology while ensuring interference avoidance and efficient use of the spectrum.

7. A primary goal of the NPRM was to develop a record on the capability of VMES terminals, or classes of VMES, to meet the interference avoidance requirements of the Ku-band FSS, such that any VMES rules for the Ku-band frequencies would protect existing and future FSS operators and their customers from harmful interference.9 The NPRM also sought comment on how to promote spectrum sharing with certain secondary and permissive operations in these frequency bands (that is, Federal SRS and RAS stations).10 Finally, the NPRM sought comment on technical and licensing rules for VMES earth stations operating with GSO FSS satellites in the Ku-band.11

4 Petition at 15.5 Petition at ii, 13.6 Public Notice, Report No. 2780, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Petition for Rulemakings Filed, RM No. 11336 (July 20, 2006). Commenters filing in response to the Petition included: Association of Public Television Stations and Public Broadcasting Service (“APTS/PBS”); AvL Technologies Incorporated; General Dynamics; Maritime Telecommunications Network, Inc. (“MTN”); Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”); Satellite Industry Association (“SIA”); SES Americom, Inc. and Americom Government Services (“Americom”); and ViaSat, Inc. (“ViaSat”). 7 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 07-101, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-86, 22 FCC Rcd 9649 (2007). 8 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9652, ¶ 6, 9668, ¶¶ 39-40. See also 47 C.F.R. §25.222 (Ku-band ESV rules).9 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9651, ¶ 3, 9652, ¶ 7.10 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9651, ¶ 3.11 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9651, ¶ 3, 9652, ¶ 6.


4

3. Land Mobile Earth Stations8. Currently, mobile earth stations, with the exception of ESV terminals, are not treated as

an application of the FSS with primary status in the conventional Ku-bands.12 Licensees operating mobile earth terminals (“METs”) mounted on vehicles and used while in motion within the United States currently operate in the land mobile-satellite service (“LMSS”) on a secondary and non-protected basis.13 Primary status for VMES as an application of the FSS in the conventional Ku-bands within the United States means that VMES licensees can expect the same level of interference protection from adjacent satellite system operations as other primary FSS operators receive and, for coordination purposes, have the same status as other primary FSS systems.14 There also are no specific service rules for LMSS in the Ku-band. VMES service rules will provide certainty as to the technical and licensing requirements for VMES systems.

B. VMES

9. A VMES system employs earth stations operating from motorized vehicles that travel primarily on land, receive from and transmit to GSO FSS space stations, and operate within the United States pursuant to the requirements set out in Part 25 of the Commission’s rules. General Dynamics and the FSS industry propose to use VMES technology in conjunction with other FSS applications to provide high-bandwidth, mobile broadband communications capabilities for uses such as U.S. military training, emergency preparedness, and commercial purposes.

C. Two-Degree Spacing

10. Generally, U.S.-licensed GSO FSS satellites are spaced approximately two degrees apart along the geostationary orbit.15 Spacing satellites this closely has required the adoption of stringent limits on the power-density emitted from an earth station antenna towards satellites other than the target satellite. FSS systems operate on a primary basis in the conventional Ku-band.16 The Commission’s regulatory framework for the conventional Ku-band establishes technical rules to govern earth stations communicating with Ku-band satellites to ensure that the earth stations’ operations do not cause

12 Traditionally, Ku-band mobile earth stations have been treated as a component of the mobile-satellite service (“MSS”). The 14.0-14.5 GHz band is allocated for MSS uplinks on a secondary basis for non-Federal use. There is no U.S. Table allocation for MSS in the 11.7-12.2 GHz downlink band. 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. MSS applicants seeking to use the 11.7-12.2 GHz band downlink must seek and receive a waiver of the U.S. Table allocation. 13 See, e.g., Raysat Antenna Systems, LLC, Application for Authority to Operate 400 Land Mobile-Satellite Service (“LMSS”) Earth Stations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz Frequency Bands, Order and Authorization, DA 08-401, 23 FCC Rcd 1985 (Int’l Bur. & OET 2008) (“Raysat LMSS Order”) (authorizing Raysat to operate METs mounted on vehicles in conventional Ku-bands and communicating with FSS space stations in GSO orbit), petition for reconsideration or clarification pending (2009). The LMSS is a component of the MSS. Thus, U.S. Ku-band LMSS licensees operate on a secondary basis in the uplink frequencies and receive no U.S. Table protection in the downlink frequencies. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. 14 Co-primary systems generally are obligated to coordinate with each other on a first-come, first-served basis, whereas a system operating under a secondary allocation must not give interference to, and must accept interference from, systems operating with primary status. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(c).15 See generally Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 81-704, Report and Order, FCC 83-184, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 577 (1983) (“Two-Degree Spacing Order”) (adopting 2º orbital spacing policy to maximize the number of in-orbit satellites operating in the Ku- and C-bands); on reconsideration, 99 F.C.C. 2d 737 (1985).16 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations.


5

unacceptable interference to adjacent satellite systems also operating on a primary basis.17 The Commission “routinely” licenses Ku-band FSS earth stations that meet the technical requirements of the two-degree orbital spacing environment set forth in Part 25 of the Commission’s rules.18

11. Until 2005, the Ku-band FSS had involved, for the most part, radiocommunication service between earth stations at specified fixed points communicating with space stations of the FSS.19 In 2005, the Commission released the ESV Report and Order, which amended Parts 2 and 25 of the rules to include ESVs – earth stations operating on vessels in communication with FSS space stations – as a primary application of the FSS with mobile capabilities.20 At the time, the Commission observed that authorizing ESVs presented the technical challenge of adopting rules to protect other FSS satellites from the mobile unit’s potentially harmful interference.21 In incorporating the ESV mobile environment into the FSS, the Commission advanced the concept of two-degree spacing by adopting off-axis equivalent isotropic radiated power-density (“E.I.R.P.-density”) and other technical rules for ESV earth station transmitters.22 The effect of these rules was to design an ESV regulatory environment whereby ESVs that exhibit radio frequency characteristics similar to those of other Ku-band FSS earth stations – such as very small aperture antennas (“VSATs”) – are eligible for licensing as a primary application of the FSS.23

12. Authorizing Ku-band VMES, like Ku-band ESV, as a mobile application of the FSS presents a similar technical challenge of adopting rules that protect other FSS satellites from the mobile unit’s potentially harmful interference. In the NPRM, the Commission sought to develop a record on the capability of VMES terminals, or classes of VMES, to meet the two-degree interference avoidance requirements of the Ku-band FSS, such that any VMES rules for the Ku-band frequencies – like the ESV

17 See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 25, Satellite Communications.18 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(g) (VSAT applications for service in 12/14 GHz band that meet certain requirements will be routinely processed). Routine applications are those that meet the technical requirements of Part 25 of the rules and thus can be licensed without a case-by-case technical review to verify that the earth station will not cause unacceptable interference into other satellite systems. See, e.g., 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage By, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, Fifth Report and Order, FCC 05-63, 20 FCC Rcd 5666, 5674, ¶ 17 n. 30 (2005) (“Fifth Report and Order”). See also 47 C.F.R. § 25.201, Definitions.19 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 2.1, Terms and Definitions, § 25.201, Definitions.20 Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, Report and Order, FCC 04-286, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005) (“ESV Report and Order”). 21 ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 681, ¶ 12. Previous to 2005, the Commission had authorized ESVs to operate in the Ku-band frequencies pursuant to special temporary authority (“STA”). See id. at 677-78, ¶¶ 5-6. Thus, the Commission had the experience of the STA operations to assist in informing its decisions on adopting allocation status and technical rules for ESV earth stations.22 Off-axis E.I.R.P.-density is a measure of the power-density emitted in directions other than the target satellite.23 The ESV rules combine the antenna gain and power-density requirements applicable to more traditional FSS earth stations to develop an off-axis E.I.R.P.-density envelope. Through this combination, the Commission designed the ESV rules to allow ESV operators the flexibility of using an antenna that might not meet the 2° spacing antenna gain pattern specified for routine earth station applications. The ESV rules permit such antennas as long as the licensee reduces the power-density into the antenna to the point that the off-axis E.I.R.P.-density limits – based on the Ku-band FSS 2° orbital spacing antenna gain and power-density requirements – still will be met. ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 682, ¶ 14.


6

rules for Ku-band frequencies – would protect existing and future FSS operators and their customers from harmful interference.24

D. Related Proceedings13. The Commission noted in the NPRM the existence of four related proceedings and sought

comment on how these proceedings might be relevant to rules for VMES.25 In one of these, the Eighth Report and Order, adopted since release of the NPRM, the Commission streamlined the non-routine earth station processing rules to enable more applications to receive routine processing.26 In the ESV Order on Reconsideration, we modify technical and licensing rules for ESVs.27 Today’s Report and Order reflects changes adopted in these two proceedings to Part 25 of the rules, as discussed below. Two additional proceedings remain pending and do not affect the VMES rules we adopt today.28

E. Commenters14. Fifteen parties commented on the NPRM. Commenters include nine Commission

licensees, manufacturers, systems engineers, and service providers, four trade and other associations, and two users – a non-profit organization and an RAS facility – of Ku-band capacity.29

24 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9651, ¶ 3, 9652, ¶ 7.25 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9655, ¶ 13.26 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, FCC 08-246, 23 FCC Rcd 15099 (2008) (“Eighth Report and Order”).27 Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 09-63, (rel. July 31, 2009) (“ESV Order on Reconsideration”). In the ESV Order on Reconsideration, we also reorder the provisions of 47 C.F.R. § 25.222. ESV Order on Reconsideration, Appendix B.28 See Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service Earth Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 05-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-14, 20 FCC Rcd 2906 (2005) (“AMSS NPRM”) (proposing service rules and procedures for aeronautical mobile satellite service (“AMSS”) systems communicating with FSS networks in the Ku-band). See also Amendment to the National Table of Frequency Allocations to Provide Allocation Status for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal Satellites, Petition for Rulemaking of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, RM-11341 (filed Aug. 4, 2006) (“NTIA Petition”) (seeking primary status protection for some Federal government earth stations communicating with non-Federal satellites in several frequency bands, including the FSS Ku-bands); Public Notice, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Report No. 2789 (Aug. 17, 2006) (placing NTIA Petition on public notice).29 Appendix A lists the filed comments. The commenters are: Americom, a space station licensee and potential VMES applicant, Americom Comments at 2; APTS/PBS, a non-profit organization that uses the Ku-band to receive and distribute non-commercial educational programming, APTS/PBS Comments at 1-2 & 1 nn.1-2; ARINC Incorporated (“ARINC”), which provides communications services among U.S. and foreign aircraft and AMSS to business jets using Ku-band FSS satellites, ARINC Comments at 2; Boeing Company (“Boeing”), a satellite manufacturer and service provider, Boeing Comments at 1-3; Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (“FWCC”), a coalition of companies, associations, and individuals interested in the FS, FWCC Comments at 1 n.1; General Dynamics, a provider of mobile satellite communications products and services, General Dynamics Comments at 1; Green Bank Facility of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (“Green Bank”), Green Bank Comments at 1; Hughes Network Systems, LLC (“Hughes”), a VSAT network operator and Ku-band satellite capacity user, Hughes Reply at 5; Intellicom Technologies, Inc. (“Intellicom”), providing systems engineering and other services, seewww.intellicomaz.com/CONTACT_US.htm; MTN, which provides maritime communications, including ESV, seeMTN Comments at 2; National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Radio Frequencies (“CORF”), representing the

(continued....)


7

III. DISCUSSION15. As described more fully below, we find that the regulatory regime the Commission has

adopted for Ku-band ESV, with certain modifications, is a good model for Ku-band VMES. That is, with respect to Part 2, ESV is an application of the FSS with FSS primary status in the conventional Ku-bands, and, with respect to Part 25, incorporates technical and licensing rules that protect other Ku-band users from harmful interference. We conclude that VMES – like Ku-band ESV, employing networks of terrestrial mobile terminals that communicate with Ku-band FSS space stations – is sufficiently similar in radio frequency characteristics to more traditional networks of FSS earth stations to operate compatibly within the two-degree Ku-band FSS satellite spacing environment. We amend Part 25 of our rules to add a new section 25.226 with technical and licensing rules for VMES, similar to the service rules the Commission has adopted for Ku-band ESVs.

16. We conclude that, in the conventional Ku-band, we should treat VMES as a mobile application of the FSS, with primary status like ESV. We address specific allocation issues: (1) revising the U.S. Table through the addition of two footnotes; (2) in the 14.0-14.2 GHz and 14.47-14.5 GHz bands, respectively, requiring VMES licensees to coordinate their proposed operations with Federal SRS and RAS stations; (3) declining to adopt commenter proposals to allocate the Ku-band downlinks based on antenna size, treat VMES as MSS instead of FSS, and address the status of “Aircraft-Mounted Earth Stations” within this proceeding; and (4) discussing the pending NTIA Petition in RM-11341 as it might affect this proceeding. We discuss the relevant VMES technical and licensing issues: (1) modeling Part 25 rules for VMES on the rules for Ku-band ESV, including off-axis E.I.R.P.-density masks, antenna pointing, and other technical and licensing rules; (2) treating potential radio frequency radiation hazards and equipment certification; and (3) considering other potential requirements.

A. VMES Allocation in the Conventional and Extended Ku-bands17. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the feasibility of

defining VMES as an application of the FSS in the conventional Ku-band, with primary status. The Commission asked whether VMES is sufficiently similar to ESV and other Ku-band FSS services –including VSAT networks that traditionally have operated in the Ku-band FSS – to ensure that VMES will not cause interference to existing and future FSS operations beyond that expected from existing FSS applications. In particular, the Commission sought comment on whether VMES can operate within the Commission’s two-degree satellite spacing environment applicable to the Ku-band FSS.30

18. That is, the Commission asked whether VMES terminals – earth station antennas mounted on vehicles that will move and have ubiquitous access on-road and off-road throughout the

(...continued from previous page)interests of the passive scientific users of the radio spectrum, including users of the RAS bands, CORF Comments at 1; National Spectrum Managers Association (“NSMA”), a voluntary association of individuals involved in the spectrum management profession, NSMA Comments at 1 n.1; Raysat Antenna Systems, LLC (“Raysat”), a manufacturer of Ku-band antennas, LMSS licensee, and holder of experimental authorization, Raysat Comments at 1-2; SIA, a U.S.-based trade association representing satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, launch service providers, remote sensing operators, and ground equipment suppliers, SIA Comments at ii, 2; and ViaSat, a digital communications company specializing in satellite and other wireless networking technologies, such as satellite networks, terminals, data encryption devices, among others, ViaSat Comments at 2. Americom and Intellicom filed their comments after the comment deadline, accompanied by motions to accept late-filed comments. Americom, Motion to Accept Late-Filed Comments, IB Docket No. 07-101 (filed Aug. 20, 2007); Intellicom, Motion to Accept Comments, IB Docket No. 07-101 (filed Aug. 29, 2007). We accept and consider Americom’s and Intellicom’s comments.30 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9657-59, ¶¶ 18-20, 9664-65, ¶ 30.


8

United States – merit primary status as an FSS application if they are designed to exhibit radio frequency characteristics similar to those of ESVs and other FSS earth stations so as to operate compatibly in the Ku-band FSS two-degree spacing environment.31

19. The Commission specifically sought comment and advice from the FSS industry on granting primary status to VMES. The Commission stated that if it granted VMES primary status, the FSS industry would have to accept any increased noise-power from VMES, as if VMES terminals were FSS earth stations, and would have to provide primary status protection to the VMES.32 At the same time, the Commission noted that the FSS industry might benefit by supplying satellite capacity, services and equipment to VMES systems.33 The Commission stated, therefore, that the FSS industry was in a good position to provide comment on the various tradeoffs resulting from a grant of primary status to VMES as an application of the FSS.34

20. Ten commenters address the similarities and differences between VMES and existing FSS applications and support granting primary status in the conventional Ku-bands within the United States to VMES systems that are capable of operating like VSAT and ESV terminals to protect adjacent FSS satellite systems from interference35 SIA states that such VMES terminals, because they meet the two-degree spacing technical requirements, are “truly FSS-like in character and use” and “will not disturb the balance that has been reached between primary FSS and secondary MSS services.”36 General Dynamics also urges primary status to preserve and enhance compatibility among relevant Ku-band services. General Dynamics contends that VMES systems most often will employ larger hub terminals with primary status – such as those used for VSAT, ESV and other FSS Ku-band services – at one end of the VMES link.37 Although stating that it does not object to the licensing of VMES in the Ku-band,

31 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9657-58, ¶ 18.32 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9658, ¶ 18.33 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9658, ¶ 18.34 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9658, ¶ 18.35 See, e.g., SIA Comments at 3, 5-6, 9 (stating that VMES terminals that can protect FSS and that require no greater protection than FSS should be primary); General Dynamics Comments at 7-17 (stating there are no inherent radio frequency differences between ESV and VMES terminals); Boeing Comments at 3-5 (stating that VMES is functionally identical to ESV); MTN Comments at 3 (stating that lack of co-primary shared services should permit primary status for VMES as FSS application); Americom Comments at 4, Reply at 4 (stating there is no basis to conclude VMES is incompatible with incumbent uses); ViaSat Comments at 4 (stating primary for VMES is consistent with growing trend toward mobile applications in FSS and will not increase potential harmful interference into traditional FSS); ARINC Comments at 3 (stating VMES systems should be primary only if they comply with technical requirements so as to cause no undue interference); NSMA Comments at 2 (stating principal considerations are controlling potential interference from VMES transmission to protect co-frequency operators and ensuring VMES receive operations do not adversely affect incumbent users); Hughes Reply at 1-2 (endorsing SIA Comments; stating that, properly conditioned and regulated, VMES has capability to operate compatibly with existing and evolving applications in FSS while protecting other uses in conventional uplink band); Raysat Comments at 3 (stating that experience confirms VMES can operate successfully in 2º spacing environment, and primary status should apply to VMES that complies with VMES rules and to non-conforming operations that demonstrate compatibility with 2º spacing requirements). 36 SIA Comments at 8.37 General Dynamics Comments at 21-22.


9

ARINC asserts that the Commission must be mindful of existing licensees and users and should avoid adopting rules that would increase harmful interference to other licensees and users in the band.38

21. Two commenters raise concerns about primary allocation for VMES. APTS/PBS is concerned that small VMES antennas will not maintain pointing accuracy. In this regard, APTS/PBS states that, unlike sea and air vessels, land vehicles move quickly on rough terrain, take sharp turns, and hit terrain obstructions, and urges the Commission to allocate spectrum to VMES services in the Ka-band instead of the Ku-band.39 CORF argues that the best way to protect RAS facilities from in-band interference from VMES would be to prohibit VMES transmissions in the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band used by the RAS.40 Alternatively, CORF recommends certain technical measures or coordination with the RAS as a prerequisite to licensing.41

22. Discussion. A principal objective of the NPRM was to develop a record on the capability of VMES to operate in the conventional Ku-band in compliance within the interference avoidance requirements of the Ku-band FSS. The Ku-band FSS now includes one mobile earth station application –ESV – sufficiently similar in radio frequency characteristics to those of more traditional FSS earth stations to operate compatibly within the two-degree Ku-band satellite spacing environment. The record demonstrates that VMES terminals licensed in accordance with the revised Part 25 rules we adopt todaylikewise will be capable of operating within the Commission’s two-degree spacing environment applicable to the Ku-band FSS.42

23. Based on the record before us, we conclude that VMES should be defined as an application of the FSS in the Ku-band. As discussed below, we adopt a new U.S. Table footnote to permit the licensing of VMES operations in the conventional Ku-band as an application of the FSS with primary status within the United States. We adopt, below, a second U.S. Table footnote to permit VMESoperations in the relevant extended Ku-bands on a non-interference basis with respect to the FS. We respond to CORF’s concerns about the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band. We discuss antenna pointing accuracy.

B. Allocation Issues

1. U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations

24. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt two non-Federal footnotes to the U.S. Table set out in Part 2 of the Commission’s rules.43

a. Conventional Ku-bands

25. Background. In the conventional Ku-bands, the Commission proposed the following footnote:

38 ARINC Comments at 1. ARINC contends that training use of VMES should occur on a secondary allocation basis because it states that training exercises have a greater potential for causing interference when personnel set up and manipulate new communications systems. ARINC Reply at 2 n.4.39 APTS/PBS at 2-3. In the event that the Commission decides to allocate spectrum in the Ku-band for VMES use, APTS/PBS suggests a number of technical measures to minimize interference with incumbent Ku-band users. Id. at 3. 40 CORF Comments at 6.41 CORF Comments at 6-8.42 See, e.g., supra, Section III.A.2.43 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶¶ 39-40. See also 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 (U.S. Table).


10

NGyyy In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 CFR part 25 are an application of the fixed-satellite service and may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis.44

The FSS community agrees that VMES, like ESV, can be implemented in a fashion that impacts existing and future FSS use no more or less than other FSS systems, and that primary status for VMES will be beneficial in enhancing compatibility among Ku-band FSS services.45

26. Discussion. The U.S. Table allocates the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands for FSS operations on a primary basis.46 In the ESV Report and Order, the Commission added a footnote to the U.S. Table stating that ESVs are an application of the FSS in these two bands.47 The NPRM proposed a similar footnote for VMES.48

27. We find a primary allocation for VMES to be in the public interest. We conclude that VMES as regulated under a revised Part 25 of our rules can operate compatibly within the two-degree Ku-band satellite spacing environment without causing harm to other FSS operations in the United States.49 We adopt the NPRM proposal for a new non-Federal footnote to the U.S. Table, as follows:

NG187 In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 CFR part 25 are an application of the fixed-satellite service and may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis.

b. Extended Ku-bands 28. Background. The Commission proposed in the NPRM to adopt a second footnote to the

U.S. Table for VMES operations in the relevant extended Ku-bands:

NGxxx In the bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 CFR part 25 may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service but must accept

44 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9693, Appendix B.45 See, e.g., supra, Section III.A.2 (commenters state that compatible VMES systems protecting adjacent FSS satellite systems from interference should be primary); SIA Comments at 9 (stating VMES will be “functional equivalent” of conventional FSS VSAT uplink, and thus existing FSS operations will be protected from harmful interference while not having any greater obligations to conforming VMES than to ESVs and non-moving, conforming, VSAT terminals); General Dynamics Comments at 21-22 (stating primary allocation for VMES in FSS would preserve and enhance compatibility among Ku-band services).46 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. There are no primary FS allocations in any portion of the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.47 ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 706, ¶ 79. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote NG183.48 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶ 40.49 We note that ARINC comments that the Commission must be mindful to avoid adopting rules that would increase harmful interference to other licensees and users, and suggests secondary status for domestic training exercises using VMES as a way to address its concern about harmful interference caused by training with new equipment. See supra, ¶ 20 note 38. We find that the technical rules we adopt in this proceeding, including antenna pointing requirements, will address this concern. We conclude that primary status is appropriate for domestic training exercises, as it is for other uses.


11

interference from stations of the fixed service operating in accordance with the Commission’s Rules.50

FWCC, a coalition of companies, associations, and individuals interested in the terrestrially-based FS, has no objection to the Commission’s authorizing VMES downlinks at 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz so long as VMES cannot claim protection from FS operations.51 Eight other commenters also support VMES operations in these bands on a non-protected basis with respect to the FS.52

29. Discussion. The International Table of Frequency Allocations allocates the frequency band 10.7-11.7 GHz internationally to FSS on a primary basis.53 Within the United States, we refer to this band as the extended Ku-band downlink band, and footnote NG104 to the U.S. Table reserves FSS use of this band for international systems.54

30. In the United States, the FS also uses this band. Our regulatory treatment of ESVs in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands requires ESV operators to accept interference from all current and future FS operations in these bands. VMES, like ESV, would use these bands for reception only. Within the United States, we do not anticipate that unprotected receive-only operations in the extended Ku-band would interfere with or restrict other authorized operations in the band.

31. Because Ku-band VMES downlink operations will not interfere with current or future FS operations and because VMES will not receive protection from the FS in these bands, we find, as the Commission did for ESV, that the intent of NG104 will not be undermined by allowing VMES to operate domestically in these bands. Thus, we adopt the NPRM proposal for the following non-Federal footnote for VMES operations in the extended Ku-bands:

NG186 In the bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 CFR part 25 may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service but must accept interference from stations of the fixed service operating in accordance with the Commission’s Rules.

As noted below, VMES applicants proposing to use the extended Ku-band frequencies must identify each space station they propose to use.55

2. International Allocation Status

32. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that there currently is no international recognition in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band for VMES as an FSS application.56 The Commission

50 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9693, Appendix B.51 FWCC Comments at 2.52 See, e.g., MTN Comments at 3, Reply at 2 (supports secondary); SIA Comments at 12 (supports proposed U.S. Table footnote NGxxx); Boeing Comments at ii, 17-18 (supports operations on non-protected basis); Raysat Comments at 4 (supports adoption of proposed footnote NGxxx); NSMA Comments at 3 (supports adoption of proposed footnote NGxxx); ViaSat Comments at 4 (supports secondary, non-interference operations with respect to FS); Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 7 (supports receive-only VMES on non-protected basis with respect to FS).53 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.104, 2.106.54 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote NG104.55 See infra Section III.C.6.c.56 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9659-60, ¶ 21.


12

stated that international recognition may be less relevant for VMES operating solely within the United States than for ESV and AMSS systems, which, once licensed by the Commission, operate both domestically and internationally.57 The Commission noted that, even in the absence of International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) agreement on a VMES allocation, it would design any proposed VMES rules to ensure that other countries’ communications systems would not receive interference from VMES terminals operating within the United States.58 The Commission sought comment on the relevance, if any, of the current international recognition of other services involving mobile terminals –LMSS, ESV, and AMSS – to consideration of a domestic allocation status for VMES.59

33. Raysat and SIA state that VMES inherently is domestic, unlike ESV or AMSS, and thus international requirements do not apply.60 SIA asserts that primary status should be accorded to VMES terminals that cause no more interference to, and demand no greater protection from, non-U.S.-licensed satellite networks than other types of FSS earth stations.61 SIA urges the Commission to proceed with domestic VMES without delay, and asserts that the international status of VMES is not relevant given our commitment to design VMES rules to prevent interference to other countries’ communications systems.62

34. Discussion. In today’s Report and Order, we adopt new domestic U.S. allocations and technical and licensing rules that will permit the licensing and operation of VMES systems within the United States. The new Part 2 allocation status and Part 25 technical and licensing rules for VMES do not authorize operations outside of the United States. We find that the rules we adopt today will ensure that VMES systems licensed by the Commission and operating under these rules within the United States will cause no more interference than other types of FSS earth stations. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the lack of international recognition for VMES as an FSS application is not a critical factor in allocating VMES as an FSS application solely within the United States.63

3. Coordination with SRS Stations in 14.0-14.2 GHz Band35. As discussed below, we require VMES licensees proposing to operate in the 14.0-14.2

GHz band within 125 kilometers of space research tracking and data relay satellite system (“TDRSS”) facilities to coordinate through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) before beginning operations.

57 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9660, ¶ 21.58 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9660, ¶ 21.59 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9660, ¶ 21.60 Raysat Comments at 13; SIA Comments at 7. See also Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments).61 SIA Comments at 7.62 SIA Comments at 7-8, citing to NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9660, ¶ 21.63 Further, we observe that ITU Radio Regulation 4.4 (“ITU RR 4.4”) permits licensing of services that otherwise do not conform to the Radio Regulations so long as the services do not cause interference to, or claim protection from, other services licensed in compliance with the Radio Regulations. It is possible that an administration neighboring the United States might authorize Ku-band FSS VMES-like operations based solely on ITU RR 4.4. We would expect that any such VMES-like terminal operating pursuant to ITU RR 4.4 will not cause interference to the operations of any U.S. licensee in the Ku-band FSS frequencies.


13

36. Background. The U.S. Table allocates the 14.0-14.2 GHz portion of the Ku-band on a primary basis to FSS for non-Federal operations.64 Additionally, the U.S. Table allocates this sub-band on a secondary basis to the SRS for both Federal and non-Federal use.65

37. Two National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) space research TDRSS receive facilities, located in Guam and White Sands, New Mexico, operate with frequency assignments in the 14.0-14.05 GHz band. The TDRSS wideband requirements and associated filtering in this portion of the band leave these two TDRSS receive facilities vulnerable to interference to varying degrees. In addition to the two existing facilities, NASA plans to establish another TDRSS receive facility at Blossom Point on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

38. The Commission proposed in the NPRM, as a condition of the VMES license, to require VMES licensees that intend to operate in the 14.0-14.2 GHz frequencies and plan to travel within 125 kilometers of the TDRSS sites at Guam or White Sands to coordinate their proposed operations prior to operating in this sub-band within 125 kilometers of the two sites.66 This is the same approach the Commission took with respect to ESVs.67 The Commission also proposed that, should NASA seek to provide similar protection to future TDRSS sites, NTIA should notify the Commission’s International Bureau that the TDRSS site is nearing operational status. The International Bureau then would issue a notice requiring all Ku-band VMES operators to cease operations in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band within 125 kilometers of the new TDRSS site until they had coordinated with the new site. After coordination, VMES operators again would be permitted to operate within 125 kilometers of the new TDRSS site, subject to any operational constraints developed in the coordination process.68

39. Nine parties commenting on this issue support requiring coordination with the two existing TDRSS sites as a condition, not prerequisite, of VMES licensing.69 Of these, General Dynamics, SIA, ViaSat, Boeing, Americom, and Hughes comment on and agree with the NPRM’s proposal that coordination be conducted through NTIA and NASA as opposed to working through the Commission.70

64 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.65 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. The U.S. Table set out in 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 includes the Federal column for informational purposes only. 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(d)(3) and (e).66 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9665-66, ¶ 32, 9698, Appendix B, proposed section 25.xxx(a)(11).67 ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 712-13, ¶ 90.68 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9665, ¶ 32.69 See, e.g., MTN Comments at 3 (recognizes need to protect TDRSS if VMES granted primary status); ViaSat Comments at 6 (urges same coordination procedures for VMES as for ESV); General Dynamics Comments at 45-47 (supports operation within 125 km of TDRSS sites only after successful coordination); Raysat Comments at 5 (supports coordination requirement as condition of licensing); SIA Comments at 10 (supports extension of section 25.222(d) coordination condition for ESV to VMES); Hughes Reply at 2 (finds coordination proposal in proposed section 25.xxx(a)(11) acceptable); NMSA Comments at 4 (supports coordination); Boeing Comments at ii, 18-19 (supports equal basis coordination as condition of license); Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments).70 See, e.g., General Dynamics Comments at 46-47 (supports coordination via NASA, but sees notification of International Bureau and public notice as administratively burdensome); SIA Comments at 10 (supports extension of section 25.222(d) of the rules to VMES, and intends to explore with NASA and NTIA a general coordination scheme); ViaSat Comments at 6 (supports coordination with NASA), Reply at 21 (supports SIA’s general coordination scheme); Boeing Comments at 18-19 (supported NTIA process in ESV proceeding and supports same approach for VMES); Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments).


14

40. Commenters are less supportive of extending the 125 kilometer coordination requirement to the new TDRSS site. General Dynamics states that current FSS Ku-band VSAT network licenses do not include geographic restrictions to protect future NASA TDRSS earth stations or other potential users and that VMES transmissions technically identical to VSAT transmissions should not pose any greater interference threat.71 ViaSat asserts that the proposed 125 kilometer coordination zone is large and would impose unnecessary burdens on VMES operations.72 Hughes suggests that an area more remote than Blossom Point would be better suited for TDRSS, and proposes soliciting comments on an area and frequency range that would be subject to coordination.73 SIA supports the extension but notes that receive radio frequency filtering at Blossom Point will be very important.74 Boeing states that Blossom Point should be designed to operate with generally accepted earth station performance standards.75

41. Discussion. TDRSS is an important part of the space science work conducted by NASA and is essential to NASA mission requirements.76 Accordingly, we find it in the public interest to protect TDRSS earth stations from potential interference from VMES operating as an application of the FSS. Therefore, we adopt the Commission’s proposal to make SRS coordination a VMES licensing condition. We require VMES licensees proposing to operate in the 14.0-14.2 GHz sub-band within 125 kilometers of the Guam and White Sands, New Mexico TDRSS receive facilities to coordinate through NTIA before beginning operations.77 VMES licensees shall notify the International Bureau once they have completed coordination. Upon receipt of such notification from a licensee, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating that the licensee may commence operations within the new coordination zone in 30 days if no party has opposed the operations.78

42. We observe that the International Bureau has notified ESV network operators in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band that they will be required to cease operations within 125 kilometers of the new Blossom Point facilities, when these facilities have become operational, unless and until the ESV operator has reached a coordination agreement with NASA that has been approved by both the Commission and

71 General Dynamics Comments at 48. General Dynamics notes that it built and currently operates much of the TDRSS ground infrastructure. General Dynamics Comments at 48 n.45. General Dynamics states it is confident that current technology is sufficient to produce future TDRSS earth stations immune to potential VMES interference. General Dynamics Comments at 48.72 ViaSat Reply at 22.73 Hughes Reply at 2-3. 74 SIA Comments at 10, Reply at 8. See also MTN Comments at 3 (recognizes need to protect Blossom Point site); Americom Comments at 1, 3, Reply at 1 (supports SIA Comments and Reply; recognizes need to protect); ViaSat Reply at 22 n. 62 (urges filtering). 75 Boeing Comments at 19.76 NASA missions supported by TDRSS include the Hubble Space Telescope, the space shuttle, and the International Space Station, among others. See, e.g., http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/Programs/tdrss.html.77 See infra Appendix B, Final Rules, section 25.226(c).78 This mirrors the procedure for ESVs. ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 713, ¶ 91. General Dynamics proposes an alternative rule restricting transmission within specified TDRSS exclusion zones, with NASA and the VMES licensee maintaining documentation of effective coordination. General Dynamics Comments at 47. We decline to adopt this alternative. We find that it serves the public interest for the VMES licensee to notify the International Bureau of completed coordination so that the International Bureau can give effective public notice, as it does for ESVs.


15

NTIA.79 We see no reason to treat VMES operators differently. Therefore, once NTIA notifies the International Bureau that these facilities are about to become operational, the International Bureau will issue a notice announcing the specific date for the commencement of operations of the Blossom Point facilities and requiring each VMES operator in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band to cease operations within 125 kilometers of the new Blossom Point facilities until the VMES operator has completed a coordination agreement with NASA, acceptable to both NTIA and the Commission, for the new TDRSS site. We expect that NASA will endeavor to design these new facilities to minimize the coordination impact on VMES and other FSS Ku-band services from TDRSS operations below 14.2 GHz.80 We observe that, in addition to the E.I.R.P.-density mask requirements, VMES, like ESV, must meet specific E.I.R.P.-density requirements towards the horizon in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band.81 These requirements, intended to control potential interference to NASA’s TDRSS earth stations, must be met regardless of the power transmitted in any other direction.82

43. Finally, we note that SIA expects new state-of-the-art interference filtering to eliminate the need for the “150 MHz guard band that is specified in the rules for the older, existing sites.”83 ViaSat urges state-of-the-art antenna/receiver front end filtering to minimize “the required 150 MHz [megahertz] guard band.”84 We understand SIA and ViaSat to be referring to that portion of the band between 14.05 and 14.2 GHz, as the two existing TDRSS facilities operate with frequency assignments in the 14.0-14.05 GHz portion of the 14.0-14.2 GHz sub-band in which TDRSS has a secondary allocation.85 To the extent that SIA and ViaSat may be suggesting that we amend Parts 2 and 25 of the rules in order to eliminate coordination requirements for VMES systems using the 14.05-14.2 GHz frequencies within 125 km of the Blossom Point TDRSS facilities, we do not consider that suggestion, for which there is not a sufficient record in this proceeding.

4. Coordination with RAS Stations in 14.47-14.5 GHz Band44. As discussed below, we require VMES licensees proposing to operate in the 14.47-14.5

GHz band within certain distances of RAS facilities to coordinate with the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) before beginning operations.

79 International Bureau Announces New NASA TDRSS Earth Station Site, Report No. SPB-221, Public Notice, DA 07-4028, 22 FCC Rcd 17321 (Int’l Bur. 2007) (“Blossom Point Notice”). See also 47 C.F.R. § 25.222(c) (formerly section 25.222(d), requiring all ESV networks operating in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band within 125 km of a new TDRSS earth station to cease operations upon commencement of the TDRSS operations, unless and until the ESV operator and NASA reach an agreement that both the Commission and NTIA approve).80 See, e.g., Blossom Point Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 17321 (stating that the Blossom Point station will have improved radio frequency filtering), General Dynamics Comments at 48 (stating that General Dynamics built and currently operates much of the TDRSS ground infrastructure and that General Dynamics is confident current TDRSS earth station technology is sufficient to immunize TDRSS earth stations from potential VMES interference).81 47 C.F.R. § 25.204(j). We discuss off-axis E.I.R.P.-density requirements in Section III.C.82 For ESVs, see 47 C.F.R. § 25.204(i).83 SIA Comments at 11.84 ViaSat Reply at 22 n. 62.85 See supra at ¶¶ 36-37; see also 47 C.F.R. § 25.222(c), formerly § 25.222(d) (requiring ESV licensees to coordinate through NTIA if they plan to operate in the 14.0-14.2 GHz sub-band within 125 km of existing or future TDRSS facilities); 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 (in column 4 of the U.S. Table – which sets out the Federal Table – listing the secondary Federal space research allocation at 14.0-14.2 GHz).


16

a. Coordination Procedure45. Background. In the United States, the U.S. Table allocates the 14.4-14.5 GHz portion of

the Ku-band on a primary basis to FSS for non-Federal operations and on a secondary basis to MSS for non-Federal operations.86 In addition, the Federal government has secondary fixed and mobile allocations in the band. RAS operates in the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band on a permissive basis within the United States.87

46. The Commission’s rules require Ku-band ESV licensees planning to operate within the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band to coordinate their proposed operations within the vicinity of three RAS facilities.88 In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the feasibility of similar coordination between VMES and RAS operations to preclude harmful interference to the RAS.89 Specifically, the Commission asked about conditioning VMES licenses to require VMES operators proposing operations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band and planning to travel in the vicinities of the radio astronomy facilities listed in footnote US203 of the U.S. Table and of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands to coordinate their proposed operations to resolve any potential interference concerns prior to operating in these areas.90 The Commission stated that requiring coordination as a condition to licensing, as opposed to a prerequisite to licensing, is the same procedure it had adopted for ESVs.91

47. The Commission also asked whether VMES licensees should coordinate directly with the NSF or work through the Commission.92 It said that an NSF coordination process would require VMES operators to complete coordination and notify the International Bureau, which, upon receipt of such notification, would release a public notice stating that operations within the new coordination zone might commence in 30 days if no party had opposed such operations.93 The Commission noted that this is the same approach it had taken for ESVs.94

48. Eight parties comment on and support requiring coordination with the RAS in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band as a condition, not prerequisite, of licensing.95 CORF, however, urges us to make

86 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.87 Internationally, the RAS is allocated on a secondary basis in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band. In the United States, Footnote US203 of the U.S. Table permits RAS observations of the formaldehyde line frequencies in the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band at certain sites. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote US203; see also Footnote US342. 88 ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 748, Appendix B, § 25.222(e); 47 C.F.R. § 25.222(d) (requiring coordination with RAS facilities at St. Croix, Mauna Kea, and Arecibo).89 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9667-68, ¶¶ 37-38.90 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9667-68, ¶ 37, 9698, Appendix B, Proposed Rules, proposed section 25.xxx(a)(12). Footnote US203 lists RAS facilities observing in the 4 GHz and 14 GHz bands and states that “Every practicable effort will be made to avoid the assignment of frequencies to stations in the fixed or mobile services in these bands.” 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote US203. The NPRM proposed the following coordination zones: Arecibo, 90 km; Mauna Kea, 125 km; St. Croix, 45 km; Footnote US203 sites, 160 km. Id. at 9698.91 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶ 37 n.83.92 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶ 38.93 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶ 38.94 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9668, ¶ 38, citing to ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 715, ¶ 96.95 See, e.g., Raysat Comments at 6; MTN Comments at 3; ViaSat Comments at 5-6 (stating that VMES should coordinate with RAS in sub-band, using same coordination procedures as adopted for ESVs); General Dynamics

(continued....)


17

coordination a prerequisite to licensing or prohibit all VMES uplink transmissions in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band nationwide to protect RAS facilities, including US203 facilities, from in-band interference.96 The eight commenters favoring coordination as a condition of licensing support coordination with NSF – as set out in the NPRM’s Appendix B, Proposed Rules, proposed section 25.xxx(a)(12) – or through NTIA.97

49. Discussion. We do not adopt CORF’s proposal to exclude VMES from use of portions of the FSS uplink band.98 We find that we can accomplish the necessary interference protection of these important RAS facilities through the less severe methods discussed below.

50. We require VMES licensees proposing to operate in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band and planning to travel within certain distances of relevant RAS facilities to coordinate their proposed operations with NSF prior to operating in these areas.99 We discuss the relevant RAS facilities in Section III.B.4.b below.

51. Licensees shall notify the International Bureau once they have completed coordination and shall submit the applicable NSF-licensee coordination agreement to the Commission. If the VMES applicant submits the coordination agreement with its application, the 30-day public notice period for the application will provide opportunity for any public comment on the coordination agreement. Alternatively, upon receipt of such notification from a licensee, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating that the licensee may commence operations within the new coordination zone in 30 days if no party has opposed the operations.100

52. For future RAS sites, we adopt the procedure used for future TDRSS sites.101 That is, once NTIA notifies the International Bureau that these facilities are about to become operational, the International Bureau will issue a notice requiring each VMES operator in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band to cease operations within the relevant geographic zone (160 kilometers for a radio observatory like Green Bank or Socorro and 50 kilometers for a Very Long Baseline Array, or “VLBA,” site) of the new RAS facility until the VMES operator has completed a coordination agreement with NSF for the new RAS

(...continued from previous page)Comments at 50; NSMA Comments at 4 (agreeing with the Commission’s approach to ESV); SIA Comments at 11, Americom Comments at 1 (supporting SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorsing SIA Comments). 96 CORF Comments at 5-8 (urging the Commission to prohibit use of sub-band or make coordination a prerequisite of licensing unless technical measures require Global Positioning Satellite software or a control center to ensure coordination, and urging the Commission to require coordination of VMES use of 14.44-14.47 GHz if the Commission does not ban VMES use of 14.47-14.5 GHz). ViaSat, SIA, Americom, and Hughes oppose CORF’s proposed requirements on using the 14.44-14.47 GHz frequencies. See ViaSat Reply at 22; SIA Reply at 6-7; Americom Reply at 1 (concurs with SIA Reply); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Reply).97 Compare CORF Comments at 8; Raysat Comments at 6; NSMA Comments at 4-5; ViaSat Comments at 6 (all selecting NSF) with SIA Comments at 11 (should be through NTIA, not NSF); MTN Reply at 5 (same); Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments). 98 Nor will we require, as suggested by CORF, coordination in the 14.44-14.47 GHz frequencies. As SIA observes, VMES terminals will be required to meet the unwanted emissions requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(f). SIA Comments at 12, Reply at 7.99 See infra Appendix B, section 25.226(d). The Commission has found the process of licensee coordination with NSF, followed by notification of the Commission, to work well. See, e.g., Raysat LMSS Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 1995-96, ¶¶ 30-31 (coordination agreement between NSF and Raysat). 100 This notification procedure mirrors the procedure for ESVs. ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 715, ¶ 96. 101 See supra ¶ 42.


18

site.102 Licensees shall notify the International Bureau once they have completed coordination and shall submit the applicable coordination agreement to the Commission. Upon receipt of such notification from a licensee, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating that the licensee may commence operations within the new coordination zone in 30 days if no party has opposed the operations.

b. Relevant RAS Facilities53. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed VMES coordination with certain

RAS facilities, including those listed in US203. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on requiring VMES operators proposing operations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band and planning to travel in the vicinity of the radio observatories listed in US203 and of Arecibo, Mauna Kea, and St. Croix to coordinate their proposed operations to resolve any potential interference concerns.103

54. MTN, SIA, Americom and Hughes support a requirement to coordinate with RAS facilities at Arecibo, Mauna Kea and St. Croix.104 At the same time, they assert that footnote US203 does not apply to satellites and there is no justification for adopting a VMES coordination zone around US203 facilities observing in the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band.105 SIA states that the ESV rules are limited to coordination with RAS facilities at Arecibo, Mauna Kea and St. Croix and do not include coordination zones around the RAS facilities listed in US203.106

55. Discussion. We require VMES licensees to coordinate with a broader range of RAS facilities than required by the ESV rules. SIA is correct that the ESV rules list only three facilities, at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. It was appropriate, for ESVs, to adopt coordination zones around the three observatories at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, because, absent coordination, there was a possibility of ESV interference to radio observations in these zones as vessels carrying ESVs entered waters in proximity to these observatories.107 We find that a similar circumstance exists for VMES terminals, which may operate on- and off-road near these three facilities. However, VMES, unlike ESV, also will be capable of traveling on- and off-road in close proximity to additional radio observatories, including those listed in US203, among others.108

56. Given the potential ubiquity of VMES terminals within the United States, we conclude that it is necessary to adopt new section 25.226(d) requiring VMES coordination with certain RAS facilities – a broader category of sites than the three coordination sites for ESVs – to protect these

102 See infra Section III.B.4.c for a discussion of coordination zones.103 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9698, Appendix B, Proposed Rules, section 25.xxx(a)(12).104 See, e.g., MTN Reply at 5-6 (urging requirement limited to St. Croix, Mauna Kea and Arecibo); SIA Comments at 11-12, Reply at 5 (urging requirement limited to three specific sites identified in what was section 25.222(e) of the rules and is now section 25.222(d)); Americom Comments at 1, Reply at 1 (supporting SIA Comments and Reply); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorsing SIA Comments and Reply).105 MTN Reply at 6; SIA Comments at 11-12 (observes that US203 applies expressly to avoiding 14.47-14.5 GHz assignments in fixed and mobile services, not in satellite services), Reply at 5-6; Americom Comments at 1, Reply at 1 (supports SIA Comments and Reply); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments and Reply). 106 SIA Comments at 12, Reply at 5.107 See ESV Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 714-15, ¶¶ 95-97.108 See also CORF Comments at 5 (stating that there may be thousands, or tens of thousands, of VMES terminals operating throughout the United States, that every major RAS observatory has public roads nearby, and that VMES appears to be intended for off-road use as well).


19

important RAS sites from potential interference. In this regard, we also observe that footnote US342 of the U.S. Table states that, in making assignments to stations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band, among other bands, the Commission shall take all practicable steps to protect the RAS from harmful interference.109

57. CORF proposes that the Commission update the list of RAS facilities in US203.110 We agree with SIA that this is not the appropriate proceeding in which to update US203.111 The Commission did not seek comment in the NPRM and we do not have a full record on the issue of updating US203. However, as noted, US342 requires the Commission, in making assignments in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band, among others, to take all practicable steps to protect RAS sites from harmful interference. We take cognizance of recent agreements between NSF and certain Commission licensees that include RAS facilities not listed in US203.112 We also observe that the Commission previously has stated that it might need to update US203.113 In an ex parte letter, NTIA provides the most recent list of RAS facilities making observations in the Ku-band and the contact information for initiating coordination with NSF.114 We determine that reliance on the sites listed in the NTIA Letter is a practicable approach to protecting RAS sites from potential VMES interference. Thus, we adopt a rule that requires VMES licensees to coordinate with NSF for the following operational RAS sites, as identified by NTIA: St. Croix, Virgin Islands; Mauna Kea, Hawaii; Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Green Bank, West Virginia; Socorro, New Mexico; Stinchfield Woods, Michigan; Rosman, North Carolina; Brewster, Washington; Owens Valley,

109 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote US342. 110 In particular, CORF states that the Five Colleges Radio Observatory and the Haystack Observatory no longer operate at 14 GHz and can be deleted from US203. CORF Comments at 9. CORF states that the Allen Telescope Array (“ATA”), located in Hat Creek, California, has replaced the Hat Creek Observatory, and urges us to replace “Hat Creek Observatory” with “ATA” and to delete the reference to observation at 14 GHz while retaining the reference to 4.8 GHz. Id. Additionally, CORF urges us to add the VLBA stations of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, listed in Footnote US311, to US203 with the notation that they observe at 4.8 GHz and 14 GHz. Id. Finally, CORF states that the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory located at Stinchfield Woods, Michigan and the Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute located at Rosman, North Carolina observe at both 4.8 GHz and 14 GHz, and urges that us add both observatories to US203. Id. 111 See SIA Reply at 6 n.14.112 See, e.g., Raysat LMSS Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 1995-96, ¶¶ 30-31 (discussing coordination agreement between NSF and Raysat); Raysat, Inc., Application for Authority to Operate 4,000 In-Motion Mobile Satellite Antennas in the 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz Frequency Bands, File Nos. SES-LIC-20060629-01083 et al., Application, Exhibit 3, Technical Operational Coordination Agreement for the Joint Usage of the Band 14.0-14.5 GHz between the National Science Foundation and Land Mobile Satellite Service Earth Stations (LMSS) Operated by Raysat, Inc. (May 25, 2006) (“NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement”) available athttp://licensing.fcc.gov/ibfsweb/ib.page.FetchAttachment?attachment_key=-110808. The NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement lists the following sites: Green Bank, West Virginia; Socorro, New Mexico; Brewster, Washington; Owens Valley, California; Kitt Peak, Arizona; Pie Town, New Mexico; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Fort Davis, Texas; North Liberty, Iowa; and Hancock, New Hampshire. NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement at 3. US203 lists Green Bank and Socorro, plus additional sites not listed in the NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement. 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote US203.113 AMSS NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 2923, ¶¶ 28-29, 2924-25, ¶ 33 (seeking comment on whether and how to update US203, based on comments that CORF had filed in that proceeding). 114 See Letter from Karl Nebbia, NTIA to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, IB Docket No. 07-101 (dated Dec. 1, 2008) (“NTIA Letter”) (listing RAS sites and proposed coordination zones and identifying NSF contact point).


20

California; Kitt Peak, Arizona; Pie Town, New Mexico; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Fort Davis, Texas; North Liberty, Iowa; and Hancock, New Hampshire.115

c. Coordination Zones58. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a rule establishing certain VMES

coordination zones around RAS facilities. In particular, the Commission proposed section 25.xxx(a)(12), as follows:

(12) Operations of VMESs in the 14.47-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band within (1) 45 km of the radio observatory on St. Croix, Virgin Islands (latitude 17° 46' N, longitude 64° 35' W); (2) 125 km of the radio observatory on Mauna Kea, Hawaii (latitude 19° 48' N, longitude 155° 28' W); (3) 90 km of the Arecibo Observatory on Puerto Rico (latitude 18° 20' 46'' N, longitude 66° 45' 11'' W); and (4) 160 km of the radio observatories listed in US203 as observing in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band are subject to coordination with the National Science Foundation (NSF).116

The proposed VMES coordination zones around Arecibo, St. Croix and Mauna Kea were the same as those the Commission had adopted in 2005 in the ESV rules.117

59. SIA asserts that the NPRM offers no justification for the 160-kilometer coordination zone around US203 sites.118 ViaSat contends that the radio horizon for VMES antennas will be approximately 18 kilometers as it states that VMES antennas typically will be less than 10 feet above ground level and signal path obstacles and foliage will attenuate signals, and that 160 kilometers is an unnecessarily large coordination area.119

60. Discussion. We take cognizance of the NTIA Letter as a useful model for delineating the appropriate geographic zones for VMES around RAS facilities. We also note that NSF and various Ku-band LMSS licensees have current coordination agreements that reflect many of the coordination zones set out in the NTIA letter.120

61. The NTIA Letter lists fifteen RAS sites. The NTIA Letter recommends 50-kilometer coordination zones around each of St. Croix and Mauna Kea, and a coordination zone of the Island of Puerto Rico for Arecibo; a 160-kilometer zone around each of five RAS sites (Green Bank, Socorro, Stinchfield Woods, Rosman, and Owens Valley); and a 50-kilometer zone around certain VLBA antenna systems (Brewster, Kitt Peak, Pie Town, Los Alamos, Fort Davis, North Liberty and Hancock).121 We adopt for VMES the coordination zones set out in the NTIA Letter. We adopt 50-kilometer coordination zones around each of St. Croix and Mauna Kea, a coordination zone of the Island of Puerto Rico for

115 See NTIA Letter at 1. See also CORF Comments at 9.116 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9698, Appendix B, Proposed Rules, § 25.xxx(a)(12). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.106 Note US203.117 See ESV Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 748, Appendix B. See also 47 C.F.R. § 25.222(d).118 SIA Comments at 12. 119 ViaSat Reply at 21-22.120 See, e.g., NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement.121 NTIA Letter at 1; see also NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement at 2-3 (stating that the Green Bank and Socorro observatories require more stringent levels of protection than the remaining eight sites associated with VLBA antenna systems).


21

Arecibo, and 160-kilometer coordination zones around each of Green Bank, Socorro, Stinchfield Woods, Rosman, and Owens Valley. For the purely VLBA sites, we adopt a maximum coordination zone of 50 kilometers.122 This 50-kilometer zone will be less burdensome for VMES operators than the 160 kilometers proposed by the NPRM for RAS sites.

d. Notification versus Coordination62. Background. SIA, which opposes the proposal in the NPRM to require VMES licensees

to coordinate with US203 facilities, filed comments that seem to suggest that it would prefer us to require VMES operators to notify rather than coordinate with RAS facilities. In its comments, SIA referred to § 25.203(f) of the rules, which requires applicants (but excluding applicants for “mobile” station authorizations, among others) to notify the National Radio Astronomy Observatory of the technical parameters of an earth station that would operate within the “Quiet Zone” for radio astronomy.123 SIA observed that the Commission had been considering a proposal, in the Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice, to replace the notification requirement with a coordination requirement for VSAT remote terminals that operate in the Quiet Zone.124 SIA asserted that the Commission might condition the regulatory treatment of VMES on the outcome in the Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice.125

63. Discussion. Subsequent to the filing of SIA’s comments in this proceeding, the Commission declined to amend § 25.203(f) in a separate proceeding. In the Eighth Report and Order, the Commission determined that it would not be in the public interest to require prior coordination to replace the Quiet Zone notification requirement for VSAT applicants.126

64. To the extent that SIA is recommending RAS notification in place of coordination for VMES, based on section 25.203(f) of the rules, we note that section 25.203(f) addresses non-mobile operations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band. VMES earth stations, as a new mobile application of the FSS, are not covered by the terms of section 25.203(f).127 Moreover, the “quiet zones” set out in section 25.203 do not encompass all of the RAS facilities that require coordination with VMES to protect the RAS from potential harmful interference.128 We find that requiring VMES to coordinate with NSF, as the Commission proposed in the NPRM, instead of adopting a VMES notification requirement, as seemingly suggested by SIA, will provide the needed certainty that this new mobile application of the FSS will not cause unnecessary interference to important RAS assets.

122 See NTIA Letter at 1; see also NSF-Raysat Coordination Agreement at 2-3 (establishing 25 kms as exclusion zone around the Hancock, New Hampshire VLBA site).123 SIA Comments at 12 n.23, referring to 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f) (defining the Quiet Zone as the area bounded by 39º15´ N on the north, 78º30´ W on the east, 37º30´ N on the south and 80º30´ W on the west). 124 SIA Comments at 12 n.23, citing 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlining and Other Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 05-62, 20 FCC Rcd 5593, 5641-43, ¶¶ 138-142 (2005) (“Sixth Report and Order and Third Further Notice”). 125 SIA Comments at 12 n.23. 126 Eighth Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 15138, ¶ 91.127 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f). See also Green Bank Comments at 1 (stating that because the Quiet Zone protections do not pertain to mobile transmitters, additional protection would be required to keep VMES uplink signals from interfering with Ku-band RAS observations).128 Section 25.203(f) covers Green Bank, and § 25.203(i) covers Arecibo. 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f), (i).


22

5. Other Allocation Issues

a. Allocation in Conventional Downlink Band Based on Antenna Size

65. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal from Qualcomm to allocate primary status in the conventional downlink band (11.7-12.2 GHz) based on antenna size.129 Qualcomm had suggested an amendment to section 25.209 of the Commission’s rules that would set an antenna size threshold, possibly 55 centimeters, above which the allocation would be primary and receive appropriate interference protection and below which it would be secondary and thus less protected.130 Qualcomm had asserted that, for a system that employs ultra-small antennas – which, with their wider main lobes, may be more vulnerable to adjacent satellite interference – the operator’s acceptance of the risk of adjacent satellite interference should be reflected in a license condition.131

66. General Dynamics, SIA, Boeing, Raysat, NSMA, Americom and Hughes concur that a primary-secondary threshold based on antenna size is unnecessary.132 No commenter suggests a reason for adopting such a requirement. MTN notes that it would not object to Qualcomm’s proposal so long as the VMES rules retain antenna pointing accuracy requirements.133

67. Discussion. We decline to adopt an antenna size criterion for VMES primary allocation. The Commission noted in the NPRM that the adoption of primary status for VMES and the application of section 25.209(c) of the rules might preclude the need for such a rule for VMES terminals.134 We are adopting primary status for VMES in the conventional Ku-band frequencies. Further, we have decided to apply section 25.209(c) to VMES. As a result, VMES terminals will receive protection from radio interference caused by other space stations only to the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be caused to an earth station employing an antenna conforming to the referenced patterns defined in section 25.209(a) and (b) and stationary at the location at which any interference occurred.135 Thus, based on our review and analysis of the record, we do not adopt Qualcomm’s proposal.

b. VMES as MSS in Conventional Ku-bands

68. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on Qualcomm’s suggestion that it allocate the conventional Ku-bands to VMES as an MSS operation on a primary basis, that is, by upgrading the secondary MSS allocation in the uplinks (14.0-14.5 GHz) to primary and adding a co-primary allocation for VMES as an MSS application in the conventional downlinks (11.7-12.2 GHz).136 The Commission stated that it did not think it would be useful or necessary to adopt

129 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9678-79, ¶ 65-66; Qualcomm, RM-11336, at 5 (filed Aug. 21, 2006) (“Qualcomm RM-11336 Comments”).130 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9678, ¶ 65; Qualcomm RM-11336 Comments at 5.131 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9678, ¶ 65; Qualcomm RM-11336 Comments at 5.132 General Dynamics Comments at 42-43 (states VMES operators, like ESV operators, should have no less priority than other FSS services provided that transmissions have equivalent E.I.R.P.-density envelope); SIA Comments at 20 (supports proposed § 25.xxx(a)(14) and § 25.209(c)); Boeing Comments at ii, 10, 26-27 (supports protecting all antennas regardless of size as set out in § 25.209(c)); Raysat Comments at 14 (supports proposed § 25.xxx(a)(14)); NSMA Comments at 8 (supports § 25.209(a)-(b)); Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments).133 MTN Comments at 6 n.12.134 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9678, ¶ 66.135 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(c)(1). See also Appendix B, § 25.226(a)(8).136 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9662, ¶ 23; see Qualcomm RM-11336 Comments at 3, 5.


23

Qualcomm’s suggestion because a decision to permit VMES to operate as a primary service with FSS satellites in the Ku-band would make co-primary status for VMES as an MSS system unnecessary.137

69. No commenter supports allocating VMES as primary MSS in the Ku-band. Those parties commenting on the issue agree that it is unnecessary to consider an MSS allocation for VMES.138 SIA, for example, states that VMES terminals are FSS-like in character and use and that it is not necessary or useful to consider VMES as MSS.139

70. Discussion. Based on our analysis of the record, we conclude that there is no need for primary MSS status for VMES in the Ku-band because we are adopting primary status for VMES as an application of the FSS.

c. “Aircraft-Mounted Earth Stations”71. Background. In 2005, in a separate proceeding, the Commission issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking proposing service rules and procedures for AMSS systems communicating with FSS networks in the Ku-band.140 That proceeding remains pending.

72. Boeing and ARINC propose that we expand the VMES proceeding to include so-called “Aircraft-Mounted Earth Stations” or “AMES,” which, like ESV and VMES, would be a mobile application of the FSS.141 In ex parte comments, Boeing proposes that we redefine the term “VMES” to include airborne terminals.142

73. MTN urges that we should not provide primary status for “AMES” in this proceeding.143 MTN states that Boeing’s request effectively asks the Commission to ignore a pending rulemaking proceeding that addresses the regulatory status of these airborne terminals.144 MTN asserts that we did not provide adequate notice to the public that the elevation of “AMES” to primary status was aforeseeable outcome of the VMES proceeding.145

74. Discussion. As noted above, the regulatory status of earth stations on aircraft is the subject of a separate Commission proceeding.146 Recognizing the ongoing status of the separate

137 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 9661-62, ¶ 23.138 SIA Comments at 8; Americom Comments at 1 (supports SIA Comments); Hughes Reply at 1 (endorses SIA Comments); General Dynamics Comments at 13-14 (states VMES more similar to VSAT in signal structure that, unlike MSS, does not radiate in other directions and Commission should not complicate question of granting VMES primary FSS status). 139 SIA Comments at 8.140 AMSS NPRM, supra note 28. 141 See, e.g., Boeing Comments at i, 8-9, Reply at 3-4;

federal communications commission fcc 09-64 · federal communications commission fcc 09-64 4 3....

Documents